Phage

Gunwounds, your points are simply absurd. First off nobody is talking about sluts on this issue but you. You seem to be obsessed with them. Likely cause you are bored with your wife, I don't know. In any event the choice isn't "virgins vs. sluts" but premarital sex, vs. absitence. Stop trying to load the issue with your hyperbole. The first option is eductated and flexible, the second is one made in ignorance and unrealistic. Besides your definition of the word "slut" is way too vague. Since it is everyone who has had sex before marriage, that would likely be everyone on this board, everyone on this board's parents and everyone on this board's partners. Simply alienating yourself like this, by basically insulting the entire board is bad tactics and manners, to say the least. In regards to the conservative Christian wife, I'd rather have a slut then that. Because at least the slut isn't a bigot and has an open mind. I wouldn't care if the Xian girl was the best in bed that ever lived, because that's all she would be good for. The fact that you would prefer this simply tells me what kind of guy you are. Perhaps you should move to Pakistan. In regards to "training a wife", she's not a pet. I'd rather not do that. Inr regards to "sluts" (those who had sex before marriage), having issues- let me say I've been with both virgins and non-virgins. And let me say that while both sides have issues, virgins usually have more. Which is why they are virgins. Basically, just because *some* women who have sex before marriage have issues, doesn't mean ALL of them have issues (save those invented by all women). But the vast majority of virgin women I know have issues. In regards to you saying I "victimize women" that is simply rude. Especially seeing as I said not to "free love" and such because it hurt women's feelings. Let me just say right now, every time you accuse me of being some sort of sexual predator, I'm calling you a liar and a bigot (which you are). It's fair play. Perhaps you should *think* before you type or speak *idea*. I also never said to pick up random chicks at a bar. That's another LIE on your part. All I simply said is that we should have sex before marriage, as that makes us more informed, and makes our dating system self-correcting. That's it. And I said to do this responsibly. You should aknowledge this, as reading is fundamental. In any event, it is rather obvious you are speaking from knee-jerk, victorian era, pseudomorality. One which makes it ok to ignore a woman's mind, and see her as almost property, opress gays and call almost everyone in the US a "slut", as well as lie about opponents constantly, while pretending you have the moral high ground. Why? Because you have sex with your wife (real big achievment). You sir are a big time hypocrite. I bet the only reason you are even acting so silly is you somewhat regret this decision and are bored with your wife. Which is understandable, as the relationship is based on naivity and will likely end with either cheating ir divorce as this boredom builds up. In any event, I'm glad morals and chasity weren't intilled in me as a child. I'm glad my parents let me think for myself instead of brainwashing me into adhering to stupid beliefs that would have just taken away things that made my life richer. I'm sorry your parents did this to you. But that doesn't give you the right to lie about things like you do. Again, sex before marriage is essential, as a relationship differs a great deal after a couple is sexually active, and that's when you really get to know eachother. It also provides a comparative standard, so you aren't just shooting ducks in the dark, allowing you to compare people via experience to find out what you really want out of a relationship. It isn't just a matter of intimacy. It's a matter of living together. Living with a person provides the best kind of experience of what a marriage would be like, and if you live with a person long enough it is inevitable you will have sex. Otherwise you'll both just be uncomfortable. If I was with someone who hadn't ever known another person, it would imo, cheapen the relationship. Because I wouldn't know if they really wanted me, or they were just ignorant. If they know something else and they still choose you, that means you're a preference. If they just choose you in ignorance, that means your just an expiriment. And last, the sort of girl most educated men would want, the open minded type who are more comfortable with their bodies, as well as able to make their own decisions will not be virgins when they meet you. Only weird conservative Christian girls, who are about as smart as a log will be like that, or some sort of ideological fanatics. Hence if you want a decent relationship, with a girl who looks good and has a brain your going to have to date these types. And these types usually don't wait until marriage.

That's a very good point, people under arranged marriages are fairly monogamous (at least in public, - according to your friend- who hung out with people from India). Anyways I had heard anectdotes to the contrary from Christian missionaries, namely that Indians were very touchy, and had no taboos about raping women, or grabbing other men. I suppose it may depend on the exact type of Indian your associating with. In any event, the above is irrelevant. The study doesn't have to control for world cultures basically because it is not meant to describe all people, in all cultures. Only people in our own culture.

Dood, trust me, if she hasn't been laid by the time she's of age, it won't exactly take a confident man. First come, first serve is probably what's happening there. That due to some kind of neuroses (discomfort with sex/people) or a bad case of oogly. I suppose she could be some extremely conservative religious woman, but who wants to marry someone like that? A girl like that sounds simple-minded and prude, hence not someone I'd like to spend years living with, seeing and talking to everyday. So you would ignore their minds, and beliefs, and values and personality just because in the past they had slept with six men? Even if she was really cute? Sounds rather shallow and silly to me.

Abstaining from premaritial sex imo, is like taking home the first cow you see, or the first car you test drive. It's reckless, and a fools errand imo, committed by people with more eagerness then brains. Even people in the army see the whole notion as silly, I know cause my bro's in the army, and my bro's not exactly prude (nor are his "battle buddies" aka fellow troops). I may not want a whore for a wife, but I don't want a virgin either. And I CERTAINLY wouldn't want to be a virgin until 30, or marry the first girl I lay. That's just going to lead to a lot more divorces and broken families. I'd like a woman with *fair* experience. Otherwise I'd feel like a one man show. IMO, the solution isn't abstinence, but safe sex. Safe, responsible sex. This means not doing ecstacy and getting drunk at a party and sleeping with a new person each week. But it doesn't mean you wait until your 25-30 either. It means you A) Know the person and B) Use a condom. Of course, there are situations where you are drunk and want a real hot chick, etc, in which case just apply risk-benefit analyses (ask if its worth the risk). And use a condom. You can also get others blood tested. If Bush really wanted to promote abstinence, he'd advocate sex toys. Many of which I imagine, can be better then the real thing in certain ways. Of course Bush and other conservatives/fundies will never do that, because they are not concerned with STD's at all. That's a farce, (like WMD's), what really concerns them is the SIN of LUST, and the collapse of their puritanical values. That's why he is also against gay marriages. Which is interesting, seeing as he doesn't wish to advocate sex before marriage....but he doesn't want gays to get married. So what does Bush expect them to do exactly? Anyways, people now at days like a little variety. We like to shop around before we settle on a decision, to keep our options open and make good, informed decisions. Marrying a woman before you sleep with her and get to know her closely is sort of hit or miss, going around and seeing what others are like for a couple years before hand allows one to become more experienced and understand more what you want exactly; it's self-correcting. Seeing what a woman is like in bed is important before you marry her, because you are going to be sleeping with that same woman for a LOOOONG time. It allows you to get closer, and serves to better show how you will get along in the future. In any event, not having sex to avoid STD's, is kinda like avoiding car accidents by by staying indoors. Sure your safe, but at what cost? BTW, I am not simply advocating "free love", or casual sex. Because though guys have the stomach for it, girls will almost always get really hurt/angry (they will, even if they say they won't, it's in their darwinian structured biology). And if your a man of conscience, you'll feel guilty for it. I'm simply advocating responsible premarital sex, usually (save for the best opportunities) in some sort of relationship. That's all.

I never said that. I said the basis was human nature and intrinsic values. Evolutionary psychology simply tells us how these values came into being. BTW EmperorWorm, I do think there is one universal in ethics. And that is "do what best serves your intrinsic values." I have never seen anyone refute that. Also I would like to ask you EmpWorm, since your morality is so absolute. Is murder wrong? Is rape wrong? Is torturing wrong? Is killing children wrong? Is supporting slavery wrong? Because if anyone of the above are "yes" God is in a lot of trouble. Since the God of the Bible murders people in various way via flood, bears etc. Even unborn fetuses. God also condones rape, after the Israelis conquer the Cannaanites. God murders children, i.e. the first born sons of Egypt.(As if they had control over Egyptian policy.) God condones slavery i.e. Israel. If these things are "absolutely wrong no matter what or who" then God is in trouble.

Personally I like Blair and I think his actions have made a lot of sense. I don't want to see him resign.

It is scientifically untestable, but not philosophically untestable.And also we can identify some causes of behavior. Yes but there are underlying causes for that. You already listed muscle reflexes for one. We know about neurons which make up the brain. We don't have to know everything, to know about some things. Well then the individual 1's and 0's of computers are irrelevant to the issue. You can't have it both ways friend. How do you know how much we know? Neuroscientists are making break throughs all the time. I think we know more then you say. Also again, this works both ways. We should then focus on how the 1's and 0's work as a whole, not in isolation. That is evolution. Just because something has a purpose does not mean it evolves. The method of reproduction is somewhat irrelevant. And I already answered this with a "yes". Just because you know nothing about it, does not mean we can't. Also your argument doesn't quite hold up. That's like me saying "well if we need muscles to run, then I should be able to see exactly what muscles cause running." Here you confuse ultimate/general explanations with proximate/specific ones. Scientists know that germs, and such are what make people sick. But they can't always identify what illness a person has exactly. That doesn't mean we invoke the "germ gremlin" for every case we cannot currently explain. Yes and I showed how it has practical value in attracting mates. However if that does not convince you, I will quote Jared Diamond, leading scientist, on the issue: http://homepage.eircom.net/~odyssey/Quotes/Life/Science/Third_Chimpanzee.html#Art Diamond again: That's a straw man. I'm not saying we can predict every factor concerning human bevior, I am only saying they are determined by causal factors. I am not saying there is "one single causal factor" that determines everything and makes it predicable. I am saying there are a myriad of them. Some of them working at a level we do not notice. Irrelevant and you are still not understanding (or accurately presenting) my point. You are confusing proximate causal factors with ultimate. From the genes point of view the ultimate matters more,from the brains point of view it is the proximate. How the mechanisms are set are irrelevant to the fact that once they are set, the individual has certain motives and values that will now exist despite their serving a different purpose then the genes "intended". To quote Richard Dawkins: http://www.meta-library.net/transcript/dawk-body.html To quote Steven Pinker, professor of neuroscience at MIT debunking people's fears concerning evolutionary psychology: http://www.edge.org/3rd_culture/pinker_blank/pinker_blank_p3.html And you have failed to give any standards as to what constitues working, or non-working. I define it in a approximate/fuzzy manner. In that the being can solve and show an understanding of certain problems, can learn, has some degree of self-awareness, etc.

Even saying atheists have no basis for morality is ridiculous. I have a basis for my morals: human nature. I thin we evolved to want certain moral norms respected. I mean if we see somebody rape a 4 year old girl, which one of us would really not WANT to step in a teach that man a lesson? I think we are genetically predisposed to adhere to moral systems due to how such systems have helped out genes throughout our long evolutionary history. Morality is thus intrinsic. To quote Matt Ridley, a leading scientist: http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=26764&pagenumber=3

They progress in a causal/rational manner. I don't see why pure repitition need be the product of determinism. But let me ask you, if people do things at random, how do we form a stable society?

If you ask me I think Moore my be doing it partially as some sort of theatrical stunt, one he could use when running for office. The gimmick could be something like "The Ten Commandments Judge" or "Vote Moore: He stood up for God."

Western civilization is based on a number of precursors to our modern law, even that of Egyptians, Bablyonians and Greeks. However I do admit the Ten C's played an influential role in the development of our laws. This however does not negate the fact that our nation has Freedom of Conscience as one of its primary values, and Freedom of Conscience forbids the government from endorsing any religious viewpoint. Now if one wants to display the Ten C's, merely for sake of historical presentation that's fine. The Supreme Court does that in fact, showing moses holding the ten commandments standing alongside other leading legal figures in history to demonstrate the evolution of law. Moore is not doing that though, Moore is by his own admittance displaying the monument for purely religious purposes.

This is ridiculous; atheists and "the immoral"? Are you serious Navaros? The point is there is a judge trying to promote religion and that is forbidden under the constitution. I don't see what is so hard to understand about that. In this respect I would say it's the Judge who is acting immoral both in disobeying the law, setting a bad example, and in violating Freedom of Conscience by trying to use state power in order to establish his religion. The monument is not some side thing in the corner, it is a large 5 thousand pound monster in the middle of a court room. You can hardly miss it. Also Navaors look at how your argument has two sides to it. If its no big deal, why continue violating the constitution to keep it around. Why not just get rid of it? Getting rid of it shouldn't be that big a deal, right?

Well the judge is perfectly free to practice and promote his religion when not acting like a judge. He can have the ten commandments in his home, at his church, on any private property. He can go door to door preaching and doing just about anything he wants when acting off duty. While on duty however he is a representative of the state and enjoys many privelegdes given to him by the state and as such he may not abuse those priveledges to advocate any religious belief. This is because at this point his audience is not there completely voluntarily but are what one calls a "captive audience." Nobody is violating the Judge's free speech rights, the judge can pray in the back of the court if he wants, or even speak about his religion all day when not acting as a judge. When acting as a judge its different though for reasons I have mentioned.

But it's not pre-determinism as your own actions are a determining factor so you do change things. It's like if we had one man shoot another man. Without an actual gun present nobody could get shot, so if we remove the gun we change the event. Pre-determinism on the other hand implies there is no possible way to change the event, it's supernatural fate. It's Fate that does it; not the gun. That's the difference. I do believe you do then effect and control your decisions, those decisions are merely determined. Fail to act or not be present and the same thing does not happen. How can we be pawns of our thought processes...we are our thought processes. What you are saying is the pawn is a pawn to itself. As for your answer I would say parts of genes and enviroment who's function we cannot fully understand. I'm sure you cannot explain every disease on the planet, does that mean when we can't explain one we propose the existence of germ ghosts? Or a witch's curse? Such is the nature of God in the Gaps reasoning and such happens when you throw Occam's Razor out the window. I'm sure if we played our the exact same scenerio multiple times with the exact same conditions you would make the same action because the alternative belief would be illogical and superfluous. There may be many logical actions one can take in any sistuation but there is only one with overhwhelming motivation behind it. Also saying our genes "randomly mutate" is a bit misleading. I suppose you are well aware of the fact that the same word can have two different meanings? So when a scientist talks about matter and energy; how energy becomes matter, concluding then that materialism is false is simply quite a non sequitur. Because when a scientist says ""matter" they mean it in a different way then a philosopher does who means something physical. Hence when scientists refer to mutations as random they do not mean to say they violate causality, they mean the mutations take off in a non-operational manner. That the mutations are not being pre-programmed by a conscousness or the enviroment in such a way as to help or harm the animal. Yet our own nerve cells, which are just a bunch of on and off switches can do so. Perhaps a computer could by that token look at us and go "a bunch of on and off switches is hard what I call learning" especially seeing as these switches are merely a bunch of protein and water when you get down to it. They do now but they are evolving. Who said outside change was forbidden in evolution? Instincts as you well know can take on a life or their own. People make love among other things to have children, but now at days they may not want children and may practice bith control. Hence the instinct may originally been something practical from the genes point of view but it is now being attained without doing its original function. Art may likewise have evolved originally to attract mates, but now it's something we take pleasure in for its own sake and make even if we don't use it to attract mates. Part of the problem comes from how you use the word practical. What do you mean by that really? You seem to mean by "practical" that it helps genes, i.e. is good for the genotype. But we humans are not genotypes, we are phenotypes. Hence everything our genes have programmed in us are so programmed because in the past they just happened to coincide with behavior that helped spread and preserve the gene. However since genes can only work indirectly (by setting up basic motives at birth as genes are not sophisticated or fast enough to plan abstacr things before birth or influence the organisms life during life) the phenotype is then given certain values which it prefers for their own sake: not the genes. We are like a vehicle on autopilot then.The genes are like blind programmers, lots of them setting programs up that will guide us once they hit the start button. They can try their best to get us to go along with what helps them beforehand but after the start button is hit i.e. the proteins are turned into cells, the whole thing is out of their hands. At this point its the programs that guide the vehicle, not the genes. So we go where we want to, where our motivations(programs) lead not in the direction that is good for the gene. These directions may only be there because they by chance helped our genes replicate in the past, but they are there. And ultimately such things are what motivate us and define what it practical; not the genes. In that sense then art is very practical, as it is enjoiyable and satisifes our values. And isn't some sort of satisfaction of value the only solid basis for defining practicality? I'm not saying they do. Only that when we repress a certain behavior we don't just do it own of the blue, for no reason but because some other motive or value compels us to do so. When I am offered a chance to cheat on my wife and fail to comply, it's not a random thing I do for no reason. I fail to comply because I love my wife and do not wish to betray her. When a firefighter runs into a burning building he doesn't do so for no reason; he does so to save a life because he feels that is his duty and he would suffer emotional pain if he failed to comply with his moral duty. Set a house on fire without anyone inside(a house already almost totally consumed) and I doubt a fireman will just rush in there for no reason. If you truly believe that then you have missed my point. My point was that an instinct can be broadened and take on a life of its own apart from its original function. Your statement presupposes that an animal acts just to help its genes, so when it realizes its behavior is maladaptive(i.e. not helpful to its own genes) it will just stop. The problem is the animal isn't being driven by its genes but its instincts. It's just in the past the instincts have tended to help the genes. Whether they do so or not now means nothing then, because like I said the motives are what compel an organism to act, not the genes. Well then it is like circular reasoning. The above is like me saying animals don't have feelings. Why? Because feelings are by definition only things a human can have. Machines cannot fly. Why? Because flight is by definition only something a bird can do. This ignores the fact that when we speak of intelligence we are focusing on the function of intellect, not the specific material that composes it. Just like when we talk about limbs, we are not so concerned that they be made of certain material or shaped a certain way. Limbs come in many shapes and sizes: fippers, insect like, human, wings, tentacles, etc. We are more concerned with their function. Hence I would say by applying your definition so narrowly, you are missing the meaning of it. BTW: As for my comment concerning religion, I have no idea what you believe so that's why I said ideological and perhaps religious, not merely religious. Likewise atheists can also be religious (Buddhists, Taoists, and New Agers can be atheists.) But never forget that language is not the container in truth by itself but only a vehicle for meaning. Definitions and language then only reflect what meaning we impart on them, hence if hence if we mean something different then your definition in our statement that "computers can be intelligent" then I would say its your definition of the word we must reject, not the statement, if the two come into conflict. Yes and not trick ourselves with language and narrow definitions. This reminds me of old arguments from 19th century biologists called vitalists. These man believed what separated life from non-life was not complex chemistrt or metabolic reaction but some special, invisible "vital fluid" that penetrated life. When confronted with the idea of something purely chemical that cannot be shown to have vital fluid many would say "then that by definition is not alive." In this regards they kind of got their reasoning bass akwards. As we define life on the basis of our experiences with what we consider or view as alive, not on the basis of it having "vital fluid."(If that even existed, it would be incidental.) Likewise when we define intelligence we do so on the basis of observed function and such, not on the basis of mere "brain chemstry"...that is likewise incidental. According to your viewpoint God himself if He existed, along with spirits could not be said to posses mind, intellect or understanding, because they were made of "spiritual stuff" not nerves and protein. And what if computer developed enough? What would be wrong then with giving them rights? Or are they simply not citizens "by definition", whatever that definition is based on.

Scytale nobody is arguing against the display of rules like "don't kill, don't steal, etc." But the first commandment opens up with "Though shall have no other God besides me." and " Though shalt make no graven images". In fact the first five commandments are merely religious, that is where we do have a problem.